<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Rex,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>I think we are talking about two meanings of
registering multiple times.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>I believe the proposals you mention relate to a
single, (logical) endpoint</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>registering multiple times to augment alias lists, etc.
The key is that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2>for each registration, the gatekeeper is
aware that the same logical</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>endpoint is </FONT><FONT size=2>involved, and it is simply
augmenting/editing registration information</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>for an already-registered endpoint.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>What I was trying </FONT><FONT size=2>to say </FONT><FONT
size=2>was that if a physical device registers as if</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>it were multiple </FONT><FONT size=2>logical </FONT><FONT
size=2>endpoints, then in practice the registrations can't</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>or shouldn't</FONT><FONT size=2> use the same transport
address. </FONT><FONT size=2>In this case, the gatekeeper is</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>not (</FONT><FONT size=2>in principle) aware that the same
</FONT><FONT size=2>physical device is acting as multiple</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>endpoints. Rather, it sees N independent RRQs. If
the RRQs share transport</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2>addresses, things will probably not work
as expected. Now, per the proposals</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2>you </FONT><FONT size=2>mention, each of
these logical </FONT><FONT size=2>endpoints could themselves register
</FONT><FONT size=2>multiple</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>times, but that is the other meaning of
multiple....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Gene Schroeder</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>elemedia</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>Rex Coldren <<A
href="mailto:coldrenr@agcs.com">coldrenr@agcs.com</A>><BR><B>To: </B><A
href="mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com">ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com</A>
<<A
href="mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com">ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Tuesday, November 02, 1999 10:23 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: RAS terminal
and gateway discovery/registration messages<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>Gene,
<BR> It is not true that a device that registers multiple times
must use different <BR>transport addresses. At least not in H.225
v4. Have a look at Berlin APC <BR>1581 and TD 27. These
proposals cover additive registration capabilities for <BR>an endpoint.
<P><A
href="ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/9908_Ber/">ftp://standard.pictel.com/avc-site/9908_Ber/</A>
<P>Rex Coldren <BR>+1 623 582 7883
<P>Gene Schroeder wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE = CITE> <FONT size=-1>Regarding your first
question, I believe that H.225 is simply saying that a
physical</FONT><FONT size=-1>device can register as multiple logical
endpoints, and this might be most common</FONT><FONT size=-1>for a GW or
MCU. It certainly doesn't mean that a PSTN GW would register
once</FONT><FONT size=-1>for each line. However, a GW could
partition its lines in some way, and register</FONT><FONT size=-1>once
for each grouping. By the way, while it is not stated explicitly,
I believe that</FONT><FONT size=-1>in practice a device that registers
multiple times must use different transport</FONT><FONT
size=-1>addresses (IP-port combination) in each registration, to allow
each logical</FONT><FONT size=-1>endpoint to be individually
addressed.</FONT> <FONT size=-1>Regarding your second question, a GW
might register an alias for administrative</FONT><FONT size=-1>or
management purposes.</FONT> <FONT size=-1>Gene Schroeder</FONT><FONT
size=-1>elemedia</FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><B><FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=-1>-----Original
Message-----</FONT></FONT></B> <BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=-1><B>From: </B>Mohamed Mustafa <<A
href="mailto:M.Mustafa@SDXPLC.COM">M.Mustafa@SDXPLC.COM</A>></FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1><B>To: </B><A
href="mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com">ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com</A>
<<A
href="mailto:ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com">ITU-SG16@mailbag.cps.intel.com</A>></FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1><B>Date: </B>Tuesday, November
02, 1999 6:50 AM</FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=-1><B>Subject: </B>RAS terminal and gateway
discovery/registration messages</FONT></FONT> <BR> <FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=-1>Hi All,</FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>H.225.0 states</FONT></FONT> <FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=-1>that</FONT></FONT> <FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=-1>"<I>one GRQ is sent per logical endpoint; thus an MCU
or a Gateway might send many</I>". Do I take it therefore, that
a H.323-to-ISDN gateway with a maximum capacity of</FONT></FONT><I>
<FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>n</FONT></FONT></I><FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=-1> lines must send</FONT></FONT><I> <FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=-1>n</FONT></FONT></I><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=-1> GRQ and RRQ messages; i.e., one for each line? If this is
the case, can anyone shed any light on the reasoning behind
it?</FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>Also, can anyone explain the
relevance of the</FONT></FONT><I> <FONT
face="Times New Roman">endpointAlias</FONT></I><FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=-1> field in the GRQ message and
the</FONT></FONT><I> <FONT
face="Times New Roman">terminalAlias</FONT></I><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> fields in the RRQ and RCF messages to a
H.323 gateway application? After all, a gateway is supposed to be
transparent to normal endpoints and does not need to be directly
addressed by them.</FONT>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman">Thanks,</FONT>
<P><FONT
face="Times New Roman">Mohamed</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>